Earlier this year, the second part of the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) came to a close. Just by this, you can tell these negotiations have been long drawn out without any real progress. This committee was set on drafting an International Legally Binding Instrument (ILBI) on Plastic Pollution, including in the Marine Environment. An ambitious step considering the contentious views of binding environmental law from many countries.
The United Nations Environment Agency passed a resolution in 2022, requesting the UN Environment Programme to form this INC to create the treaty on plastic pollution. While a monumental step in theory, it is now 2025, with the 2nd part of the 5th session coming to an abrupt end. States have not reached an agreement, and the draft text is considered by many to be “vague” and “unambitious,” having been rejected by over 100 countries. Even with so much time invested throughout the past 3 years, why hasn’t a reasonable draft been created yet?
There are three main grounds of divergence:
- Scope of the Treaty. It was not clear in the resolution whether the treaty was to cover the entire ‘lifecycle’ of plastic and what that entails. Furthermore, a central point of contention was whether the mandate covered issues related to the sustainable production of plastic and its raw materials, or if it was limited to the disposal of such products. This strife is clear, especially when considering there were issues in determining which verb to use: whether the treaty’s objective should be to “address,” “end,” or “combat” plastic pollution.
- Financing Mechanisms. Disagreement arose over who would be responsible for financing the implementation of the future treaty, particularly for the most vulnerable countries. Developed countries generally favored mechanisms involving public-private partnerships, voluntary contributions, and existing funds, such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF). In contrast, developing countries advocated for a new, independent, dedicated funding mechanism requiring regular contributions from developed countries, citing historical responsibility for plastic pollution.
- Mandatory v. Voluntary Measures. This was a broad area of disharmony with various Articles under scrutiny: Article 3 on plastic production, Article 5 on plastic design, Article 8 on plastic waste management, Article 9 on existing on plastic pollution, and Article 14 on submitting national plans.
Given all this disagreement, it’s essential to consider aspects beyond the negotiating table. Over 200 fossil fuel and petrochemical industry lobbyists took a seat right on the outskirts of the table, expressing their views during the negotiations and swaying the objective from a strong binding treaty to a mere recommendation. It’s a pattern of the past. Petrostates teaming with lobbyists to restrict enforceability of these articles. It’s a delicate situation since introducing strict responsibilities would lead these major plastic producers to remain outside the bounds of international obligations.
However, this doesn’t mean that all hope is lost. Three steps can be taken to get back on track. First, it’s essential to clarify the scope of the ILBI, either through negotiation or by requesting an additional mandate from the UNEA, as the scope serves as the foundation upon which the rest of the treaty is built. Defining the scope should include the definition of ‘plastics’, ‘lifecycle’, and ‘pollution’.
Secondly, the funding mechanism should initially reflect the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change’s Global Environment Facility (GEF). Voluntary contributions from donor countries fund the Global Environment Facility. It sets an eligibility criterion to receive funding that includes having ratified the relevant convention or being eligible for World Bank funding. Further, the project must be headed by the country itself, not a 3rd party. With a similar framework, the treaty on plastic pollution can provide the necessary funding to developing countries that rely on plastics for profit, easing their transition to a more sustainable path.
Next, regarding the Voluntary vs. Mandatory debate, core articles should be held as mandatory, such as striving to fulfill the treaty’s objective. The rest of the articles can potentially start as voluntary. However, some accountability is still necessary for progress, and therefore, states can be required to submit their plans for fulfilling their obligations, reporting after a set interval. This would initiate a “planning” process before the “acting” process, while also increasing public awareness and pressure through reporting successes and failures.
Finally, the international community can now use this experience as an opportunity to bring up negotiations for a stronger stance on preventing plastic pollution at the upcoming UNFCCC conferences. This may be a smaller step, but a much more effective one.
Overall, while this session hasn’t been short of disappointing, it’s not futile. It’ll only become so if we fail to learn from this session and make the necessary changes for successful negotiation. It’s important now more than ever to stay strong on mandating a shift towards sustainability regarding plastic pollution in the international sphere; finding common ground so as to take at least one step in the right direction.
